ALMOST 150 suspected rorts of the Gillard government’s Renewable Energy Target scheme were reported to the regulator last year, with NSW and federal authorities assisting with the execution of two search warrants as a part of the probe.
The Clean Energy Regulator yesterday released its annual report to government on the administration of the RET — a scheme that provides certificates for both large and small-scale renewable energy generation as part of the bipartisan target of ensuring 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity comes from renewables by 2020.
The regulator’s audit report revealed that during 2012 it received 147 allegations of rorts, the majority of which related to the creation of dodgy certificates for rooftop solar panels.
So far three “monitoring warrants” have been executed by NSW and Australian Federal police. One matter is before the Federal Court as a civil prosecution. One criminal matter was heard last year.
…businessman John Testoni of Sydney Solar Eco Solutions pleading guilty to improperly creating $170,000 in RET certificates for 24 non-existent solar system installations in the Sydney area.
Fake markets just ask to be scammed. Who can forget the Spanish winter of late 2009 when 4,500Mw hours of “solar” electricity was generated at night. That was 2.5 million euro of diesel powered photovoltaic electricity. As Lubos points out, the regulators said they ended the scam, but slightly smarter crooks would just turn off the diesel at dinner time wouldn’t they? Who was checking?
Higher feed in tariffs for solar power are a falsely high price. No one can tell a solar-powered electron from a coal-fired one, yet one artificially “sells” for more (and these are the same people who say we need a “free market”). The arbitrage position begs to be tested.
Alarmists concerned coal investors will lose money
The same Australian story notes at the end that The Climate Institute are worried about coal investors losing money. Shucks. Coal investments in the US are about $674bn a year and about $5.7bn in Australia. Coal is in an unsustainable bubble they say, “of climate denial, indifference or dreaming.”
Being the great investors they are The Climate Institute warns “It is increasingly clear there will be a lot of wasted investments or stranded assets,…”
But I suspect coal investors probably know something about their competition from The Famed And Glorious Renewables Revolution.
Speaking of which, Scott-the-trader wrote to me yesterday to point out that in the wind-favoured-electricity-market of South Australia the wind was stilled and electricity spot prices were up: “Pool prices at $200/Mwh compared to the rest of the NEM at $60/Mwh.” (NEM means National Electricity Market.) He went on, “5 minute pool price price in SA has been as high as $12000/Mwh this morning.” I wondered, how much power the turbines were making? He replied, “…the next 5 minute snapshot after the one attached was for a net draw by wind from the system of 1Mw.”
“Installed capacity of wind in SA >1220Mw. ”
Running at minus 0.1% capacity then*.
Electricity spot prices across Eastern Australia Monday 29-April-2013
A few hours later things had improved (slightly) “Combined wind output totalled across Vic and SA is right at this moment 52Mw from the installed capacity of 2107Mw”
But hey. It’s only one day, right?
UPDATE: Commenters were asking about the screen, and if that pricing information is available on the web publicly. It’s not. But Scott points to the goovernment AEMO site (Australian Energy Operator), and the Wind-Farm Performance site where data is available for yesterday, and on each wind-farm individually. We can see that yesterday national wind-generated-electricity was running a bit less than 10% of capacity.
* UPDATE #2: John Hultquist points out that a “draw” on the system means it’s a negative. Scott confirms. The wind towers are using electricity trying to “hunt” for the right wind direction. The word “minus” added to that sentence.
Ha! The political wind is changing. Better stand upwind of the house of cards as it starts to crumble.
174
If my detractors had enough confidence in their opinion to actually respond, I could reply to them. But they don’t.
Sorry to call this to everyone’s attention but it typifies the response to an opinion they don’t want said. 🙁
One way or another, as of the time I post this it’s 12 who think I’m right.
70
Maybe the alarmists should start to worry about James Hansen….
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/hansens-mea-culpa-says-man-made-global.html
A paper published today by James Hansen has some startling admissions, including
the effect [forcing] of man-made greenhouse gas emissions has fallen below IPCC projections, despite an increase in man-made CO2 emissions exceeding IPCC projections
the growth rate of the greenhouse gas forcing has “remained below the peak values reached in the 1970s and early 1980s, has been relatively stable for about 20 years, and is falling below IPCC (2001) scenarios (figure 5).”
the airborne fraction of CO2 [the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to fossil fuel CO2 emissions] has decreased over the past 50 years [figure 3], especially after the year 2000
Hansen believes the explanation for this conundrum is CO2 fertilization of the biosphere from “the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal.”
“the surge of fossil fuel emissions, especially from coal burning, along with the increasing atmospheric CO2 level is ‘fertilizing’ the biosphere, and thus limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2.”
“the rate of global warming seems to be less this decade than it has been during the prior quarter century”
I recall the self same Hansen saying…
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” —Dr. James Hansen, The Observer, Feb. 15, 2009
251
Forgive me for being confused, but I thought the science was settled? I thought the lack of atmospheric warming was easily explained because someone found it hiding deep in the ocean.
So the warming which the UN IPCC predicted caused by increasing CO2 emissions is really happening; you just have to look really hard to find it.
Oh but then I recall some other scientists who didn’t know about the really hard to find warming deep in the oceans, said man made warming is definitely happening in the atmosphere; or it would have been if it wasn’t for some as yet unidentified, unquantified natural variable which is dampening the CO2 forcing. Which they are sure is the greatest single climate variable, (other than the unidentified, unquantified natural variable which seems to have gazumped CO2).
But now Hansen is saying that’s all wrong, the warming would have been happening if only we weren’t burning so much coal! So it’s settled then; stop burning so much coal and the planet will warm as predicted??????
211
I do believe Hansen has discovered photosynthesis
; )
151
It’s a clear case that he is a misunderstood genius.
Probably born into the wrong time…
20
Hansen is either insane, suffering from Alzheimer, or both. He’s a drama queen more concerned with playing activist than he is with being a scientist.
181
Insane pretty much covers it.
Over here the druids (AGW believers) just cannot bring themselves to admit that there has been 17 years without warming of any kind. And now we have your very own Lew imported to shore things up by smearing any opposing view as ‘mental’.
121
Insane is my diagnosis.
Over here the druids (AGW believers) just cannot bring themselves to admit that there has been 17 years without warming of any kind. And now we have your very own Lew imported to shore things up by smearing any opposing view as ‘mental’.
51
I pointed out to the warmists the other day that human activity pumps billions of tons more water vapor into the air than CO2 and that water vapor is THE major greenhouse gas… so why are they not jumping up about it?
Their reply was that it just comes down as rain and snow, whereas CO2 does not. I’m happy to accept that really does happen, but none of them realised that in saying so, they also must remove the major “forcing” required for their alarmist assessments of what is happening with the climate 🙂
Some dillbrain in the previous thread claimed that that CO2 causes the capacity of the atmosphere to retain water vapor to rise…. such is the desperation.
171
And the rain and snow that falls contains dissolved CO2, both in molecular form and also as carbonic acid (H2CO3). So rainfall removes some of the CO2 from the atmosphere. This is an important part of the carbon cycle.
130
Excellent point BackSlider !. Those photos of power station emissions showing derdy pollushn clouds of steam (gaseous DHMO) were on the mark after all! sarc/ . You’ve skewered this paradoxical CAGW argument nicely, either water vapour is a significant feedback accelerating warming, or its a very short-lived photosynthesis-stimulating beneficial side-effect of the very slight warming effect of CO2. Can’t be both, so those who wish to remain True Believers must forthwith begin lobbying to enact a fogging tax. 🙂
30
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” —Dr. James Hansen, The Observer, Feb. 15, 2009
Ironic he uses this analogy when the ideals he supports could lead to these past horrors once again.
60
The irony is that the phantom solar panels which the tax payers are subsidising are probably more efficient from a net CO2 emission perspective than real solar panels because no green house gases were emitted in their manufacture and shipping and maintenance, and the base load power generators would still need to be operating whether or not they were in place!
This paper would not encourage governments to subsidise solar panels: ‘The Cost of Abating CO2 Emissions by Renewable Energy Incentives in Germany’ Claudio Marcantonini, A. Denny Ellerman, Climate Policy Research Unit, European University Institute, Italy February 1, 2013.
The study calculates that over a number of years the cost of CO2 abatement through subsidised solar power has averaged a whopping 537 Euros per year/tonneCO2 taking into account start up and ongoing costs and fuel savings and estimated CO2 abated. This compares with today’s price of just 3.04 Euros per tonne for carbon emission permits on the European Energy Exchange.
90
Ha! sad but true irony.
I propose a new word to use “carbony” this when not doing a carbon lowering exercise actually lowers the carbon more than doing the exercise.
Pure carbony……
81
What about the claim the subsidised solar power provides clear benefits of CO2 abatement? Surely for many Australian households, that subsidy encourages them to use more energy from the grid than otherwise, perhaps even more than their PV installation delivers.
50
Reading that, I was struck with the notion that James Hansen seems to think that “atmospheric CO2” is somehow distinguishable from “fossil fuel CO2“. Perhaps one is white and the other is black. Who knew?
160
Well I did see a show (yea sorry not much of a reference) where this guy was identifying CO2 particles using some sort of isotope method and it deed seem fairly convincing that he could identify a factory CO2 particle from a volcanic one for example.
Thinking about it now though it seems a bit like the arguments around “organic” food. I do enjoy pointing out to folks that organic NaCl is the same as factory produced NaCl, so organic table salt is at best a “wank”
30
Factor=Factory
[fixed]
00
I rather like John Brignell`s definition of organic as being “Grown using only impure chemicals” He has a rather amusing Vocabulary list here for those that have trouble with the current “New Speak”
20
ChiefIO (E.M. Smith)had a good blog on the subject of the C13 vs C14 ratio used to incriminate humans as the major contributors to increased CO2.
The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios
Jo Nova ( Dr. Salby) on the subject:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/
Dr. Roy Spencer @ WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
00
No Rereke:
The ‘bad’ CO2 is black from coal dust whereas the ‘good’ CO2 is green.
You’d think these people would concentrate their minds on things they can understand. How many angels can dance on the point of a pin etc.
61
Gets even better if you compare the strident abuse of emissions by us English speaking countries, with the silence and even applause for the emissions by China el al.
There fore I suspect the eco-loons of believing that western CO2 causes “bad” warming, whilst maintaining that asian CO2 causes “good” cooling.
After all the rubbish these people would have us believe, I see no problem suspecting them of idiocy.
So white co2 versus black co2 is a fundamental pillar of the cult of CAGW.
41
Erm, two issues there, one interpretative, one theoretical.
Firstly, Hansen literally says “the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to fossil fuel CO2 emissions”, which is the ratio of a directly measurable CO2 concentration (regardless of its source) and a fossil fuel CO2 flux which could be estimated fairly accurately from total fossil fuel sales (eg the annual BP world review). The statement does not imply knowing where any given atmospheric carbon atom came from.
Secondly, according to one theory it is possible to distinguish (in bulk) the fraction of atmospheric CO2 increase that is fossil fuel in origin by observing the depletion of Carbon-13 relative to C12 concurrent with a decrease in atmospheric O2. Both fossil fuels (when they were alive) and living biomass slightly prefer C12 over C13 during photosynthesis and so are depleted of C13 relative to the atmosphere in which they grew. To the extent modern plants decay they will return summer C12 to the air in winter and make no difference to atmospheric ratios in the long term. The rate of C13 production can be gauged from cosmic ray flux, so when integrated plus some calibrated offset constant it gives the expected C13 fraction in air at any time if no biotic bias were present. The theory then is that fossil fuels are adding carbon from a long term C13 depleted source and so the C13:C12 ratio should now be falling. And it is.
The catch that Spencer tried to argue is that the C13:C12 ratio could decrease due to either fossil C12 increase OR a natural C12 release from the oceans. But crucially, to affect the isotope ratio the source must be isotopically biased, but I’ve never heard what natural ocean C process or repository could be biased like this and he has never named it. At the same time, O2 concentration has been decreasing since 19th century, with combustion being an obvious candidate though obviously any other redox reaction with oxygen could be doing it. Beyond that I do not understand all the details, and I don’t personally rely upon this line of argument for establishing the source of modern CO2 rise as I find the carbon accounting argument has less variables and is more easily measured. Nonetheless the isotope fraction argument still has some adherents in the usual places.
Personally what I found more mystifying was Hansen’s statement:
Eh? fossil fuel emissions significantly affect N2 supplies to biomass, when N2 is 70% of the atmosphere?? The only way I can twist this to make it less nonsensical is if he is talking about nitrate (eg ammonium) fertilisers that are made from natural gas, or the diesel/petrol used to run tractors that plough the fields to expose soil to the air and absorb nitrogen the old fashioned way.
But with Hansen who can tell.
40
If atmospheric N2 was accessible by plants other than legumes ( via rhizobia) there would be no need ever for nitrogen fertilisers. In short, 70% N2 in the atmosphere is of little relevance for plants because the N2 molecule is very stable and chemically inaccessible.
Hansen might have been referring to rain-captured nitrate inputs from fossil fuel burning. There is some evidence in temperate forests of increased growth in regions which have received such (very minor) N inputs from industrial and fossil fuel sources, provided that rainfall is steady or better. The N inputs are very low (eg 100-250 g/ha/yr) compared to typical agricultural applications (30-150kg/ha/yr). In fact these N inputs ( or possibly the CO2 fertilisation effect) are more likely to have caused the increased growth than increased temperature in the last 30 years. Tree-mometers are more likely to be N-omometers!
20
Don’t be so sure about isotopic ratios. I seem to recall testing over forests showed ‘unexpected’ ratios. . Ratios that would otherwise suggest more from fossil fuel use. I will try to find the paper.
10
Andrew McRae,
You’ve nailed it, I was thinking about what you said about the C13:C12 ratio.
The majority of plants will not distinguish between the two, so in theory the ratio will remain the same in the atmosphere and carbon sequestration of existing plant life. So far so good.
But it is not so, the C4 plants such as sugar cane, maize, millet etc, and some C3 plants are our major crops for agriculture, pastoral, and more importantly biofuels which are the biggest turnovers of carbon atoms on the planet (bar the oceans). The majority of C13 will be returned through to the atmosphere simply through volume and recycling, especially biofuels. Sugar Cane is probably responsible for over 15% of daily photosynthesis and all C4 plants contribute to 25% of world photosynthesis, yet only make up 4% of total plant species on earth.
If plants like sugar cane are continually being recycled, then the C13 atom will also be proportionally emitted back into the atmosphere. Is this logical in the turnover of C13 overall in the environment? Pastoral grazing by animals also turn over billions of tonnes of Carbon, and being monocot (C4 grasses) fed mainly they too contribute hugely to this imbalance.
A lot more carbon is currently being recycled rather than stored or sequestrated by plants today.
The C13:C12 ratio is probably barking up the wrong C4 tree. I think there is so much more to this carbon isotope argument as a reason to justify the CAGW alarmism.
00
As I said above the C13/C14 ratio arguement has been debunked
Dr. Salby) @ JoNova:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/
Dr. Roy Spencer @ WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
And EM Smith:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
00
The more I watch this the more it appears that those supporting the AGW meme in its various forms aren’t very good at math.
81
Or have the ability for abstract thought 😉
51
Abstract what?
50
Thought
10
i stopped to think once and forgot to start again.
50
I wonder how they fit that in to those climate models?
A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers.
The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low.
In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.
“But the numbers don’t quite add up,” says Emmert.
80
Easy, what answer would you prefer.
20
As I have mentioned, I work for one of the largest manufacturers and installers of wind turbines in the world. I am basically persona non grata at the watercooler for my views… but whatever… here are some numbers, nothing new, just highlights the nonsense of wind. The last 2 projects I have been on have had the following characteristics.
1. 140 turbines, producing 3mw per turbine in ideal conditions at a project cost of 1.2b AUD
2. 56 turbines, producing 3mw per turbine in ideal conditions at a project cost of (aprox) $400m
So thats (140 x 3) + (56 x 3) = 588mw (some of the time) for around 1.6b
My water cooler rhetoric is basically that this is a stupidly irresponsible way to generate power, given our economy is going down the gurgler faster than the blades on the turbines can spin, how can we possibly justify this madness when the alternative is considered ?
http://www.jcmiras.net/surge/p130.htm – “Based on the above table, advanced open cycle gas turbine has the least cost and one of the fastest to construct (2-3 years), probably due to its matured technology as compared to photovoltaic, fuel cell, and solar thermal technologies, which has a cost of more than 10 times of the advanced open cycle gas turbine plants.
Though the fuel source is clean, cheap and renewable, most renewable power plant technologies utilizing this kind of fuel are the most expensive as compared to plants using fossil fuels. Among renewable energy technologies, wind power plant is the less expensive. Aside from capital extensiveness, low capacity factor (except geothermal) makes the cost of energy produced from renewable energy even higher.”
But at an even more basic level, just the simple math of the fact that you could have 2 high quality gas turbines (maybe 3) producing a total power output (not governed by environmental inconsistencies) of around 2400mw (probably more) and running at around 50% of the emissions of coal for the price you paid for less than half that output in the very best of circumstances, is not only a travesty. Its something our grand children will look back on and say WTF were they thinking!!
In fact I recently made a little pie chart on that topic, to tease one of the dreamland hippies I work with. Enjoy – https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxUZq-oWGcY2UVNyaXJMVEgzSkU/edit?usp=sharing
Which is the best part about this whole argument. We (sceptics) keep getting beaten about the ears with the notion of “think of the kids” when Im pretty certain those very kids will be a lot happier to have a job and an affordable power bill, than they will to have the possibility of a world 0.5c cooler (which is a nonsense guess anyway). Just my hunch, but Id be willing to put money on it.
So I will just plod on as the “stupid angry guy” at work who no ones talks to, happy in my certainty that this entire AGW scam is just that.
210
Thank you for your interesting comment SafetyGuy, now regarding the 0.5c cooler don’t forget that Andrew Bolt forced Tim Flannery to provide the timing of that change and his answer was around 1,000 years if all nations cooperate. I understand that men in white coats entered the studio soon after.
90
Yeah for sure. I just felt I had to add some sort of number lol and since my ability to pluck them from the air is no worse than the IPCC etc…..I chose 0.5 😀
50
I got a good laugh out of that.
Here are the real numbers for the USA:
~ 23% Unemployed
23% on Social Security/Disability (using # of US citizens as base = 270,150,000)
4.1 % on Welfare
(Not to mention the 15% are on food stamps)
The last time I added it up, about 25% were receiving paychecks from the government treasury (Politicians, bureaucrats, teachers, fire, police…and you should probably toss in a lot of the lawyers and accountants too not to mention Archer Daniels Midland Co.)
That leaves less than 50% working/voting age adults employed at non-government related jobs. Oh, and of those who do work only 53% pay Federal Tax (link)
This is the real CAGW ( Catastrophic Anthropogenic Governmooching Worker – or should that be wonker?) tipping point.
Sure illustrates the -Benjamin Franklin quotes,
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch…
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
[The first link is very good, I find your numbers are off concerning the second link. The link says 57,202,000 receiving Social Security including Disabled. Then don’t forget you can’t just add these numbers because as I understand it, a person can collect both Social Security, food stamps and welfare at the same time.] ED
[Graph use as permitted: http://www.shadowstats.com/charts_republish ] ED
00
i bet the sun wasnt shining either!!!
i found this site and it gives you control over the windmills! untick all the states then no one is producin wind power!!!!
http://windfarmperformance.info/
20
Oh yeah, the system gets rorted all right – here’s another example.
Last night I had a fellow visit the home to install some special power boards which cut power to your television and other appliances connected to it when you switch off the TV, instead of them all running on “standby” all the time. It has an IR receiver so that you press the power button on your remote to wake up the system – power is resupplied to appliances, and then you press the power button again to turn the TV on. We reckon we can make a reasonable saving on our power bills through not having all these appliances quietly chewing through little bits of power all the time.
Anyway, this cheerful fellow followed me about the house to the three locations where there are televisions, with me untangling the various wires and making sure things like PVRs and powered antenna amplifiers weren’t going through the system, and at the end came the paper work.
Naturally, this is a “free” service because the company is claiming clean/renewable energy certificates for each installation, and you sign your right to the certificates over to the company. It was only at the point that the fellow was going through the paperwork with me that he mentioned that, should an auditor from the regulator appear to check the work, we would need to say that there’s usually a gaming console attached to one of the televisions, because qualifying for the certificate requires that at least one of a specified range of appliances must also be connected to the television. He’d wordlessly attached a TV by itself to one of these boards, and only explained later that he really shouldn’t have.
Truth be told, there *is* usually a gaming console attached to that TV, but he didn’t know that, and he didn’t ask. I think it’s symptomatic of the cavalier attitude prevalent in this “green industry” that the installer openly assumed I’d conspire with him to defraud the government.
200
Very interesting and it certainly hints at how deep this particular rabbit hole goes. Its a classic though, when you add Govt. money to something it gets more expensive and it gets rorted, ever has it been so.
60
Pink bats debacle, insulation fraudsters comes to mind.
90
Hmmmm … gaming the system.
The energy “savings” by installation of such devices are largely hypothetical. Indeed, some are crudely based on assumed standby power consumption as high as 17W for a TV and over 40W for a gaming console. They don’t measure it. Because real numbers, with appliances purchased in the past decade, are usually much lower. Even most game consoles now have standby power saving circuitry that actually works.
Regulators should indeed be aware that European appliances (those with CE certification) will consume less than 3W. I have a dozen gadgets attached to a metered power board and on “standby”, they consume 17W in total. Over the nominal billing period of 60 days, it costs about $6 to have them on standby; less than $40/year; with Western Australia’s expensive electricity.
What’s the RoI for all that planet-saving standby-power switches?
I “waste” as much electricity by leaving the light in the kitchen on all evening, most evenings, because the 3-minute warmup of the CFL is intolerable and UNSAFE. Back in the days of instant-on light bulbs, I used to switch on teh light as I entered the room and then switched it off as I left. That’s why the switch is right next to the door, isn’t it?
Indeed, it is more likely that devices will fail due to more frequent cold starts. I’ve had more stuff fail as it was being switched on after a “long” period of being disconnected from power, than fail when starting from standby. Most of that broken stuff goes into landfill as it’s not economical to repair; even when the failed component only costs 5 cents. When council bulk waste collections require e-waste to be separated, the “environmental management” cleanup company puts everything in the same crusher as the waste is collected.
Another concern is that devices such as video recorders are frequently used to record programmes when unattended. i.e. the TV is off. By turning off power at the mains supply, such automation is no longer possible. For “planet savers”; other people’s time is a free and infinite resource.
70
Glenn
There is an obvious follow on to this episode.
When the time comes to Vote he will be inclined towards the easy money.
Could this whole thing be construed as Vote Buying?
Can politician buy votes with taxpayers money?
KK 🙂
40
Three or four years ago, I answered the door to someone offering free compact fluorescent bulbs. “No trick – you get them for free; I’ll be back with them in a couple of hours”. He turned up with boxes containing (from memory) 70 to 80 bulbs, got me to sign on a sheet of paper and handed them over. Talking to a work colleague later on, it seems this was some government program to have energy efficient lightbulbs installed. By signing, I was apparently giving them the government rebate for the power savings I was supposedly making. What he should have done was personally install them and check they were all working; presumably also give me no more than needed (maybe a few more than installed, but not the dozens I was given). In the end, I guess this contributed to some government statistics on how many carbons were saved by their wonderful energy efficiency program.
100
Exactly. The theory was one ulna replaces an incandescent and abates N CO2s over its 8000hr lif. So they give you a $4 bulb and get $20 of credits if you sign the form.
But incandescent bulbs were outlawed, so in practice no incremental abatement at all – plus I had no incandescent bulbs in my house to begin with. (I have about 1000 years of replacement bulbs though)
00
What are those certifies worth anyway? The amount of power consumed by devices on standby, TVs gaming consoles whatever, is but a mere piddling of a fraction of the output of even one of those Peter Garrett mercuric toxic lightbulbs. For example 5W or less is a typical standby consumption. With the current REC price of $40 per MWh, each hour of saved standby is worth $0.0002, so hey, only 5000 hours of avoided standby to earn a whole $1 of REC equivalent !
30
There are many websites featuring articles about the green “concern” over fossil fuel investments. They are so disingenuously fretting over investors and their holdings in securities related to fossil fuels and tangential financial concerns that it is blatantly obvious. The only reason these fools aren’t coming out and forecasting the demise of the fossil fuel industry is that none of their predictions about the death of fossil fuels ever came to fruition. They were all an abysmal failure and an absolute bust.
Since everything is in one way made from fossil fuels or uses fossil fuels or is manufactured using energy from fossil fuels the end of the fossil fuel industry would mean either the end of the modern world as we know it or that we will be living in a green paradise. Neither of those will ever come to pass, except in fantasyland.
All these “concerns” are based upon the belief that renewables will be able to compete with fossil fuels and that the market will invest heavily in renewables and alternative energy and that investments in conventional sources of energy, particularly fossil fuels, will wither away and disappear.
If past is prologue then investors will pull out of any alternative energy scheme once it becomes obvious that it cannot progress past the R&D stage and nor compete with traditional fossil fuels. BP, which use to bill itself as Beyond Petroleum, is divesting itself of it alternative investments and a lot of investors are bailing on wind and solar investments, as well.
Alternative energy research is analogous to cancer research in that they keep trying with very little success. The difference between the two is that medical researchers may someday succeed and find a cure for cancer!
173
Look again at that image of the spot price for electricity.
This is precisely why Wind power is so expensive.
Those supporters of Wind power say, “Hey, that’s got nothing to do with us.”
At that time when the spot price is as high, and more often considerably higher, wind power is at it’s lowest generation, and therefore being so low, then the actual cost of wind power being supplied is also low. Those wind supporters then say that isn’t Wind power that’s being sold to the grid, it’s power supplied by other sources.
So then, why is that power so expensive in the first place?
Because wind power is so variable …… and power HAS to be at the grid for consumption.
The grid controllers get on the blower and ring around all the little guys who generate power, and here I don’t mean little household generators, but smaller gas fired plants that are only used at dedicated times each day, the mornings for the breakfast rush, and late afternoons early evenings when everyone comes home from work and the Residential power consumption increases.
All going to plan, these times are set in stone, so the little guys understand that’s when they’ll be needed and they plan their operations around those times, a couple of hours (if really needed) in the AM, and most likely, those three or four hours in the late afternoon early evening. All their work hours are structured around that, all their gas purchases to run the plant are structured around that, so they can plan for that. Those smaller plants dedicated for that Peaking Power operational times charge more for their electricity, because not being a constant supplier, (like coal fired power which runs routinely) their costs are higher. That overall cost is then absorbed into the total running cost for electricity supplied to the grid.
However, when the wind stops blowing and wind power drops off, and drops off, and drops off, grid controllers find themselves now with power that HAS to be there, and suddenly, one of their large suppliers, Wind starts to fall.
So now, grid controllers HAVE to get on the blower and call up those little guys, and tell them that they desperately need them to run up and come on line. Those small guys then get on the blower and call in their workers, and have to run up their plant on (very) short notice, hence consuming more gas than they usually budget for hence raising their running costs, and to cover that, the cost of the power being generated is consequently higher (well, much higher) than it usually is.
Now that’s why that spot price rises and rises so dramatically at times.
What is actually the cause of that. Not that the electricity they generate is so damned expensive.
No, it’s due to one thing.
Wind power has failed to supply on demand.
Wind power supporters say that hey, this isn’t Wind Power that’s expensive. It’s those other dirty filthy rotten fossil fuel plants that are so high, nothing to do with us at all.
They WILL NOT SEE that they (Wind) have been the root cause of electrical power being so expensive.
Look again at the image.
Note NSW. Note Victoria. Note Queensland. I haven’t said note Tasmania because their power consumption is but a blip compared to those three bigger States.
NSW, Victoria, and Queensland, well, they have plenty of good old fashioned coal fired plants just humming along nicely, thank you very much indeed.
All three of those States are generating their electricity at a good steady rate, as planned, all selling that cheap power to their grids, while in South Australia, grid controllers are running around frantically, like blue assed flies, asking little guys to come on line, all those little guys saying well, this will cost you mate, and the controllers, with their Sword of Damocles over their head being the State Government, saying Hey, where’s our power you guys, and if there’s blackouts or even brownouts, there’ll be hell to pay. and you guys will get the blame.
Just supply the power and hang the expense.
All the while those wind supporters saying, hey nothing to do with us.
It has everything to do with them.
THAT is why wind power is so expensive, and can never compete with coal fired power.
They are the root cause of that expensive power.
Tony.
213
Right now we are almost ready to generate on the current site. Shortly (4 weeks or so) we will offer 168mw to the grid. Now if this energy is actually needed, then how have we got by without it ? If however it is not needed, then why are we building something so expensive that randomly threatens to deliver energy we dont need ?
The only way you ever hear justification for these matters is in responses so replete with fringe mathmatical arguments that its almost impossible for anyone other than a a math professor with significant experience in energy markets to work out if the answer is BS or not. Which leads a layperson like me to conclude, its probably garbage or it wouldnt require a super complex equation to point out the poofteenth of benefit.
Pretty simple when you compare it to a good modern gas turbine, fixed cost, fuel for at least 100 years + that we know of, stable market for the fuel and a known, on demand output of power. Easy.
120
Quite right Tony.
I see we have 2 intellectually challenged trolls here.
Slightly O/T have you seen http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/its-an-ill-wind/
The article is nothing new but the comments may be of interest, as an obvious expert points out other problems with wind.
90
If they want to prove that renewables can fill the supply in South Australia, the largest source of wind power generation in Australia, it’s a simple thing really. Just let the wind power provide what it does, when it does, and don’t ever ask those other plants to come on line.
Oh, and also, cut the Victoria South Australia interconnect off, so that Victoria doesn’t have to come to South Australia’s aid when the wind stops blowing.
If they’re so damned proud of their Wind, let that supply their power.
That will NEVER happen.
Tony.
161
Look again at that spot price image.
Note the Sth. Australian price there of 200.89. (that’s dollars per MWH)
Note that next figure there 1536. (That’s MW actually being consumed)
Note that next figure -655. That is power being exported from Sth. Australia, and note it is MINUS, so that amount of power is being IMPORTED into Sth. Australia. That’s 43% of Sth. Australia’s actual power being consumed is being generated in other States, and in the case of Sth. Australia that is via the S.A.-Vic. Interconnect.
So that power to keep Sth. Australia actually running comes from the brown coal generators in Victoria and the excess Hydro from Tasmania, (via the Tas.-Vic. Interconnect) and note both of those States are net exporters of power, power generated over and above what they are actually consuming.
That’s 43% of South Australia’s power being generated outside of Sth. Australia.
Oh, yeah! Wind really can supply Sth, Australia’s needs. eh!
Tony.
121
OK, so what makes it so expensive then.
On top of the extra S.A. plants that have to (expensively) run up, they also need to import power.
There are power losses over distance, so that Hydro power coming from the bottom of Tasmania across Bass Strait into Victoria and then from Victoria into Sth. Australia, and then distributed across that State, well, there would be very little left.
So S.A. says we need X, and Victoria then supplies all that power via the Vic-SA interchange. Then because Vic is now low, it needs to top up its power from the Vic-Tas Interchange.
Because of this S.A. has to pay the cost of power via its interchange, and the the cost of Victoria’s extra power via its Vic-Tas interchange.
See now how the costs can spiral for S.A.
This is an instantaneous thing as the wind power fails, (literally) hence the term spot price.
Note also how NSW also has a net import from Vic and also Qld. They are buying power from the North for northern NSW, and power from the South for Southern NSW, The power NSW is purchasing is from (relatively) local and that imported power is in the main coal fired power so it is relatively cheap.
S.A. on the other hand is purchasing power from 2 States away.
That NSW import figure also shows how NSW power has been allowed to run down, with no new plants being constructed in that State under successive Labor Governments, who sold off the plants at bargain basement prices, and then failed to approve any new plants for construction.
In both cases, S.A and NSW, thank heavens for coal fired power. Otherwise the biggest State in the Country would just grind to a halt.
Tony.
112
Coal plants, hydro plants, wind farms and the little guys with gas generators all make money?
12
Well its also interesting to note that whenever I have asked how long it takes our clients (AGL, Origin and the like) to recover their investment on a windfarm, I get a fairly consistent answer (from people who ought to know) of between 2 and 5 years. So given the life of a windfarm is around 25 years, thats around 20 years of almost pure profit for the owner of the asset. Remembering also that much of the infrastructure costs have been taxpayer subsidised in the firstplace. I swear the generators who got into this about 10 years ago must sit around the boardroom table laughing like loons!
This really makes it quite clear why AGL and Origin etc are actually calling for the RET to be reconsidered and for windfarms to reduce construction. They have their assets, their free money is now guaranteed. Why would they want anyone else getting in on the action ? Their gravy days are now in site as most of Australias decent size windfarms are reaching that 5 year plus point. Meanwhile do you see your power bills going up or down ? How is it that this so called cheap, green energy, coming from a source that is almost always 100% paid for is not driving down prices ?
Answer – same as if you and I owned the asset, why would you pass on profit ?
30
I`ve said it before but it bears repeating , the single biggest problem with fashionably green alternative energy is that it is invariably an an alternative to actual usable energy . If an energy source were found tomorrow that provided abundant cheap power 24/7 with little environmental impact various green groups would attack it as “HAVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT” , If a new energy source comes along that is inadequate , expensive and erratic but with a moderate to high environmental impact it would be praised as “MODERATING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT”
The Green focus is getting energy as inconvenient and expensive as possible because that hurts humanity and that is Their objective
120
For sure!
I pointed out to a friend the other night that if Australia annouced tomorrow that it was building 5 of the largest most efficient gas turbines in the world to reduce energy costs and boost manufacturing and industry, no one in the world would bat an eyelid. The only people that would jump up and down would be the usual suspects and as you rightly point out, they wont be happy until we are all naked and eating berries.
140
LOL , MarkD beat me to it below
I was about to say , while with the right company ,being naked and eating berries can make for diverting evenings recreation as a long term survival strategy it falls down badly , especially during winter
60
Hey! what’s wrong with that?
72
WTH, that was supposed to go under 11.1
22
Nothing at all as long as in winter you can sit in a nice warm room reliably heated by a coal fired or gas fired power station.
70
More realistic would be naked and showing berries!
30
Having been raised in the hills and hollers of the Appalachian Plateau in western Pennsylvania, I sometimes have trouble with the English from other parts of the Empire. Consider:
“I wondered, how much power the turbines were making? He replied, “…the next 5 minute snapshot after the one attached was for a net draw by wind from the system of 1Mw.””
. . . a net draw by wind from the system . . .
. . . where I came from would mean the wind installations are taking power, not producing it. That would be a negative (-) 0.1% capacity. Or not. What say you?
70
Correct , many of the larger turbines cannot sit idle for too long without damaging the bearings so they draw power off of the grid to rotate them occasionally during periods of dead calm .
It gets worse in Your neck of the woods and places further north however as many turbines are being retrofitted with heaters to keep warm as in very cold conditions the viscosity of the hydraulic fluid and grease in bearings etc increases so much that the turbines seize .
60
John, you are right. Scott replies: “Correct. Just the fact of being energised will create a small load if they not spinning, but in fact with a lot of them its more than that. They have small motors that spin the direction that the wind turbine blades face attempting to find the wind – ie ‘hunting’ the wind – this then becomes a load or draw on the system”
I’ll update. Thanks. Jo
91
The issue of what electricity wind towers use is discussed here.
As can be seen wind tower operators are not required to declare what electricity they use from the grid.
So, if the wind towers are using more elctricity then they are generating where does that leave renewables?
Maybe TonyOz has looked this issue.
80
I can confirm that. I get to see the “SCADA” screens at work and they show a wide array of data about the turbine performance. When they are sitting still they are generally consuming between 1-3kwh.
10
UPDATE: Commenters were asking about the screen, and if that pricing information is available on the web publicly. It’s not. But Scott points to the goovernment AEMO site (Australian Energy Operator), and the Wind-Farm Performance site where data is available for yesterday, and on each wind-farm individually. We can see that yesterday national wind-generated-electricity was running a bit less than 10% of capacity.
61
Here’s the link to yesterday’s wind farm (how I hate that word farm when applied to wind) plant.
Wind Performance Monday 29 April 2013
Not the daily high, 360MW at Midnight. Note the low, 130MW at 9AM and the average for the whole day (all 24 hours) comes in at around 200MW.
That’s for a total Nameplate of 2512MW, more than 1,000 towers. That average 200MW means that for most of the day, barely 80 of those more than a thousand towers actually had the blades turning.
That’s a Capacity Factor for the whole day (average) of 8%.
That was also 0.95% of the total power actually consumed across that same coverage area, all Australia minus WA and NT.
And some commentators call this, umm, intermittence, and that extra distributed coverage would solve this problem.
Yeah! Right!
Tony.
71
Don’t worry chaps, all our renewable intermittency problems can be solved, we just need to find the missing wind!
It’s probably hiding in the deep oceans….
100
Missing winds. “….hiding in the deep oceans” LOL.
…. almost as plausible as the missing winds having been converted into tropospheric “shear” and creating a hot spot that thermometers can’t measure.
20
The obvious one is , in addition to the solar panels , just get a couple of residential wind turbines or facsimiles thereof connected to the inverter and without the power company wanting to sit outside the house with night vision gear and a camera for 24+ hours it`s going to be problematic proving there were no errant localized gusts of wind spinning the whirligigs overnight . A particularly cheeky slightly smarter crook could even use bio-diesel in the generator as I believe most places it has some sort of rebate or subsidy attached
90
Climate adaptation fund needs more gov’t cash: World Bank
LONDON, April 29 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A U.N. fund set up to help the world’s poorest countries adapt to climate change will have to rely mainly on donations from governments after carbon credit prices collapsed to near zero, according to a World Bank report published late on Friday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2328862
Brazil’s indigenous groups oppose use of REDD offsets in California’s ETS
SAO PAULO, April 29 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A group of Brazilian indigenous organizations asked California regulators on Monday not to accept carbon credits from projects to avoid deforestation located in the states of Acre (Brazil) and Chipas (Mexico) in the state’s carbon market because the projects threaten their livelihood…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2329107?&ref=searchlist
30
INTERVIEW: Sovereign wealth funds could rescue UN offset scheme – advisor
LONDON, April 29 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The U.N.’s $215 billion Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) should launch a fund to attract sovereign wealth buyers and reinvigorate demand for its CO2 permits trading near record lows, said the vice chair of a panel tasked by the U.N. to find ideas to save the carbon offset market…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2328847?&ref=searchlist
Reuters says their interview is with Vice Chair, following is interview with the Chair, read all:
29 April: RespondingToClimateChange: EU uncertainty likely to affect global carbon markets
The head of the world’s only global emissions trading scheme (ETS) says EU climate ambition is central to ensuring carbon markets are a success.
In an email interview with RTCC, Peer Stiansen, the new chairman of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board, warns the EU ETS was “critical in development of the mechanism”.
“The recent down-turn in the EU ETS highlights the urgency of identifying or developing additional sources of demand for CDM units,” he writes.
And despite warnings last year that the CDM had “essentially collapsed”, Stiansen says he remains confident it can survive the current downturn provided governments back low carbon policies…
Peer Stiansen (PS): …Of course, the economic downturn in Europe has clearly had an effect, the EU ETS being the biggest market for CDM credits.
However, I see a growing interest in market approaches and mechanisms – in Australia, New Zealand, at the state and regional level in the US and Canada, in China and elsewhere…
RTCC: Can we look at some of the recommendations in the report, first, regarding the collapsed price of CERs – has the “immediate crisis of demand” been satisfactorily resolved?
PS: The price of CERs is even lower this year. As a result, the number of projects entering the pipeline has fallen off, to around 20 a month. This means that industry people engaged in the CDM are looking elsewhere.
It might be hard to convince them to come back. I’m the Chair of the CDM Executive Board, so I’m extremely concerned about the health of the mechanism…
RTCC: Do you think governments buying excess credits from the market to stimulate the price is a good idea?
PS: I think everyone would prefer that the price were high based on the fundamentals – resulting from countries reducing emissions in response to what the science tells us is necessary to address climate change.
I think that the governments should weigh how best they can contribute to the CDM in the coming years. We know that money is tight. They will have to defend what they buy to their taxpayers, so they need to spend wisely…
RTCC: It also calls for “greater access to underrepresented regions”. A common criticism is that projects are disproportionately located in China and India – is this a situation you want to change?
PS: We should appreciate that CDM is a success in China, India and other countries. The Board, as well as our political masters, have always taken measures to enhance regional distribution, and I am sure we will continue to look for ways to spread the benefits of the CDM…
RTCC: Some projects and recipients have raised eyebrows (the UAE state run property firm that built Dubai’s indoor ski slope for example). What must the CDM do to protect its reputation in the future?
PS: First, there is no such project registered under the CDM. The closest thing I’ve found to that is a notice of prior consideration, a sort of statement of intent, by a developer of shopping malls.
Unfortunately, your example is familiar. In my own country, media have several times criticized the CDM for projects that never even got to validation, and these stories do shape public perception. There has been steady improvement of the CDM since its launch, much thanks to constructive criticism by those genuinely interested in improving the mechanism.
There are now more than 6700 projects registered in 85 countries, and many more projects are in the pipeline. It will be a real shame if imagined or outdated criticisms prevent the CDM from delivering on its potential…
RTCC: To what extent does the CDM’s future depend on the EU-ETS performance – are these interlinked issues?
PS: The European market has been the main demand centre for CDM units by far.
It’s fair to say that demand from the EU ETS was critical in development of the mechanism…
The recent down-turn in the EU ETS highlights the urgency of identifying or developing additional sources of demand for CDM units.
I see several potential sources of demand: demand in emerging market systems, demand from development agencies wishing to make use of the validation, verification and sustainable development aspects of the CDM to further their goals, and companies wishing to use CERs as part of corporate social responsibility programmes.
For example, I’ve learned of a World Bank fund of more than 50 million dollars earmarked to buy CERs at above-market prices from projects in least developed countries…
http://www.rtcc.org/eu-uncertainty-likely-to-affect-global-carbon-markets/
10
reminder:
31 Oct 2012: RTCC: Company behind Dubai’s ski slope to receive cash from UN carbon market
UAE: A property developer in the UAE has had its energy efficiency programme approved for registration with the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Majid Al Futtaim Properties, the company behind Dubai’s indoor ski slope, will be able to sell carbon credits earned from the emission reductions across its property portfolio…(Source: Zawya)
http://www.rtcc.org/company-behind-dubais-ski-slope-to-receive-cash-from-un-carbon-market/
Source:
31 Oct 2012: Zawya: Majid Al Futtaim Properties concludes second annual energy conference
Peter Walichnowski, Chief Executive Officer, Majid Al Futtaim Properties commented: “As the sole member of the GRESB in the Middle East, Majid Al Futtaim Properties is the first in the UAE to disclose its energy consumption and efficiency investments. Adding to our record of firsts, we work closely with the Dubai Carbon Centre of Excellence (DCCE) to become the region’s first retail company to register in the United Nation’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol. The registration will allow Majid Al Futtaim Properties to monetise its carbon emission reductions through converting the emissions across its portfolio into carbon credit certificates that are sellable at market value throughout the next ten years…
Press Release 2012.
http://www.zawya.com/story/Majid_Al_Futtaim_Properties_concludes_second_annual_energy_conference-ZAWYA20121031073916/
10
Wait for it,
They have awarded the Desalination Plant of the Year
For the desalination plant, commissioned during 2012, that represents the most impressive technical, financial or ecologically sustainable achievement in the industry.
Distinction: Adelaide Desalination Plant, Australia
They make water by using electricity, now that’s really, really, really GREEN. NOT
Maybe they should hook it up to the windmills in SA. What a joke this whole system of energy sustainability is now.
40
Hey Dave, we in vic have this to enjoy paying off http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/12/02/1226528/519126-desalination-plant.jpg
and not one friggin drop produced yet!
30
Yonniestone,
Up here in Queensland, the big desalination plant at the Gold Coast is in moth balls. I suppose the South Australian one was the winner, because all the others are shut, too expensive to run.
The debt run up by this Flannery induced wet dream is criminal.
50
As I recall the Spanish scheme still actually used solar cells – they just used diesel generators to power old WW2 anti-aircraft search lights pointing at the cells.
I wonder if you can even make this kind of thing illegal. If a corporate entity creates a solar installation, and a legally separate entity creates a lot of light pollution, much of which “happens” to end up on the solar cells of the first entity, could you actually prove an intent to commit fraud? Isn’t that just a lucky coincidence?
60
From Bolt’s blog today A question to the Prime Minister following her pre-budget address at the ABC :
Solar employs more people than coal (?) to produce less ? Love to hear some considered responses to this … the employment claim doesn’t strike me as being correct … and how exactly are they going to “export” that renewable energy ?
60
Hardly a challenge Streetcred. You put it in batteries and ship them over on lighter than air flying thingies like the Hindenburg thus not only exporting renewable energy but reducing the carbon print of those nasty jet thingies and large floating things that use diesel. And if you are reading this Steve I have a nice bridge I can sell you. Now off to take my medication.
40
No need to carry batteries. The lighter than air flying thingies ARE the energy export, carrying compressed H2 made from sunlight and seawater, and bouyed by the decompressed H2, a fraction of their cargo in fact. Can only export to downwind nations tho.
20
I think he means that when it gets dark here, we’ll send the sun over to the Northern Hemisphere and all their squads of clean energy mirror-cleaners and mirror-dusters can get to work.
20
Off topic but hilarious nonetheless; apparently climate change may drive women to prostitution:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296679-dems-warn-climate-change-could-drive-women-to-transactional-sex
30
Peter H, my reply ended up #24, cheers.
10
HA HA! LMFAO!
If someone can get that worked up over a non existent problem then they probably need as much “release” as they can get.
This is the true effects of “Recursive Fury” and it must be rubbed out! 😉
10
Here’s a few clues to help with their reduced agricultural output right now:
1.Stop diverting food crops into bio fuel crops
2.Stop forcing impoverished farmers to purchase GM patented seeds.
3. Stop CSG mining under prime agricultural land.
Then we might start planning for Tim Flannery’s next thousand year emissions abatement proposition and keep future ladies off the streets.
20
Mods: this is completely off-topic; feel free to delete or move to another discussion.
All: Sorry if this is redundant; my time is limited, so I only glanced through comments. As far as leftist-fraud science goes, the New York Times published a lengthy article on a Dutch researcher who faked all of his data, otensibly to bring about a change which he deemed to be ‘socially correct’. Never mind that it was a complete hoax; since this “scientist” decided what was best for the rest of us, his motives were “pure”.
I think Anthony had a write-up on his website.
Interesting reading!
My best to all,
Mark H.
Casper, Wyoming
United States
00
Yes, I read the article. There are some really interesting parallels with a certain John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky…
20
Anybody have a link to the article?
00
Backslider:
Probably best if you go to Anthony’s website (Watts Up With That, in case you didn’t know) and scroll down to the article titled, “How a scientist became a con man”. As far as I know, a link to the original article is either there or a way to find the original is listed.
Sorry I could not provide a direct link (not really sure how to do that).
Old dog, new tricks, and all that rot … … …
Regards,
Mark H.
00
anyone… and i mean anyone… that has a solar power panel ‘connected’ to the grid is a thief.
wind… blow it up your rz….
ret is a discriminatory tax….
10
Pierre Gosselin does some arithmetic Germany’s $20-Million Solar Jobs
Renewable energy scams are collapsing in Germany. Energy majors are abandoning offshore wind power. Electronics giants like Bosch and Siemens are abandoning PV solar panel making. Biodiesel producers are spitting the dummy because the fuel that they’re producing has no market value as it’s not certified as “sustainable” by the EU.
High Priests of Climatology are being called to account by libertarian politicians; even in the established parties that are being encouraged by popular “push-back” produced by high energy prices resulting from the “energy transition” and ever-more ludicrous regulations made in compliance with EU dictats.
Germany’s traditional libertarian/small-government party, the FDP, is getting “competition” from the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland: Alternative for Germany) and the PdV (Partei der Vernunft: Party of Reason) in the lead-up to a federal election in September. AfD and PvD have in common that they oppose waste so are naturally against the EU’s excesses. AfD is however more closely focused on anti-Euro and anti-“Rescue”; but they have not recognized the nonsense of “sustainable energy” though they obect to all subsidies to the “renewable” sector. The PdV has a broader platform of government reduction but a lower public profile; for now.
00
and this too : Schellnhuber Rejected! Why The German Government Is Moving To Overhaul Its Climate Advisory Board
00
Back in the 70’s during the OPEC induced oil crisis, the US government introduced the concept of ‘new oil’ after companies stopped exploring for ‘old oil’ due to the high taxes on it, so called windfall profits tax which made much production uneconomic. The new oil was lightly taxed.
An early version of enhanced oil recovery was developed where steam was injected into old fields which would reduce the viscosity of bypassed oil which was forced towards producer wells. Typically it would take 3 barrels of oil to produce the injected steam to recover 2 barrels of oil. So while a technical failure, because the burnt oil was ‘old oil’ and the recovered oil was new oil, it was an economic success!
20
The RET is bound to fail. Wind turbines will be the next rort to hit the news. Investigations are under way into wind farms which are fraudulently claiming renewable energy certificates whilst not meeting their legal and social responsibilities. Check out http://stopthesethings.com/?s=rally for the upcoming Wind Power Fraud Rally in Canberra at 9.00am on Tuesday 18 June 2013.
00